SUSAN NICDAO CARIÑO, petitioner, vs.

SUSAN Presumed validity of Nicdao’s marriage w/ the

YEE CARIÑO, respondent.
FACTS: SPO4 Santiago Carino contracted 2
marriages during his lifetime. The first was on June
20, 1969 with Susan Nicdao-Carino, the petitioner
of the case at bar with whom he had 2 children and
the second was on November 10, 1992 with Susan
Yee-Carino, the respondent, with whom he had no
children. Santiago has been cohabiting with Susan
Yee since 1983 but became bedridden in 1988 and
died 13 days after the second wedding. Both Susans
filed for monetary benefits and financial assistance.
Nicdao was able to collect 146K while Yee was able
to collect 21K. On December 14, 1993, Yee filed an
instant case for collection of sum of money against
Nicdao. Yee wanted at least half of the 146K. Nicdao
failed to file her answer and was declared in default.
Yee admitted that her marriage to Santiago took
place during the subsistence of, and without first
obtaining a judicial declaration of nullity of, the
marriage between petitioner and the deceased. She,
however, claimed that she had no knowledge of the
previous marriage and that she became aware of it
only at the funeral of the deceased, where she met
petitioner who introduced herself as the wife of the
deceased. To bolster her action for collection of
sum of money, respondent contended that the
marriage of petitioner and the deceased is void ab
initio because the same was solemnized without
the required marriage license. In support thereof,
respondent presented: 1) the marriage certificate of
the deceased and the petitioner which bears no
marriage license number and 2) a certification
dated March 9, 1994, from the Local Civil Registrar
of San Juan, Metro Manila, which summarily stated
that there was no record of a marriage license The
trial court ruled in favor of Susan Yee. CA affirmed
the decision of the trial court
deceased cannot stand as there is no marriage
license, burden of proof of validity was w/ her. It
does not follow however, that since the marriage of
petitioner and the deceased is declared void ab
initio, the “death benefits” would now be awarded
to Yee. As stated earlier, for purposes of remarriage,
there must first be a prior judicial declaration of the
nullity of a previous marriage, though void, before
a party can enter into a second marriage, otherwise,
the second marriage would also be void.
Considering then that the marriage of Yee and the
deceased is a bigamous marriage, having been
solemnized during the subsistence of a previous
marriage then presumed to be valid, the application
of Article 148 is therefore in order. As to the
property regime of petitioner Susan Nicdao and the
deceased, Article 147 of the Family Code governs as
they were both legally capacitated. The difference
bet 147 and 148 is that wages and salaries earned
by either party during the cohabitation period will
be split equally between them even if only one
party contributed in 147, whereas in 148 wages and
salaries earned by each party belong to him or her
exclusively. So under Art 147, Susan Nicdao is
entitled to half of the remunerations and the other
half belong to the legal heirs of Santiago, who are
in this case, the children of Susan Nicdao
The petition is GRANTED, and the decision of the
Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 51263 which
affirmed the decision of the Regional Trial Court of
Quezon City ordering petitioner to pay respondent
the sum of P73,000.00 plus attorney’s fees in the
amount of P5,000.00, is REVERSED and SET
ASIDE. The complaint in Civil Case No. Q-93-
18632, is hereby DISMISSED.

ISSUE: WON the absolute nullity of marriage may be

invoked to settle claims to death benefits

HELD: Under Article 40 of the Family Code, the

absolute nullity of a previous marriage may be
invoked for purposes of remarriage on the basis
solely of a final judgment declaring such previous
marriage void. However, for purposes other than
remarriage, no judicial action is necessary to
declare a marriage an absolute nullity. For other
purposes, such as but not limited to the
determination of heirship, legitimacy or
illegitimacy of a child, settlement of estate,
dissolution of property regime, or a criminal case
for that matter, the court may pass upon the
validity of marriage even after the death of the
parties thereto, and even in a suit not directly
instituted to question the validity of said marriage,
so long as it is essential to the determination of the
case. In such instances, evidence must be adduced,
testimonial or documentary, to prove the existence
of grounds rendering such a previous marriage an
absolute nullity. These need not be limited solely
to an earlier final judgment of a court declaring
such previous marriage void.